G
GKC
Guest
Yep.But to which all Catholics are to ascribe, per my post.Unity in belief is at the heart of Catholic teaching.
GKC
- Status
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Then you should follow that. But other Anglicans may do otherwise. It was built into the bones at the Elizabethan Compromise.
GKC
I
Indifferently
Guest
The preface to the Thirty Nine Articles (an Elizabethan document) states that their purpose is “THE ESTABLISHING OF CONSENT TOUCHING TRUE RELIGION” (caps included).They were not merely an administrative measure to keep people quiet. The “compromise” of Elizabeth was no such thing. It just so happens that some people want to have their cake and eat it, by calling themselves Anglicans while rejecting the Protestant reformation.
W
whoisdiss
Guest
I think it really falls back on the word “transubstantiation.” From what I read it seems like you guys believe in it but don’t like using the word. Catholics on the other hand use the word all of the time. There really isn’t much of a difference on the theology of the Eucharist between Catholics and Anglicans, it’s more about what words should be used to describe it.
P.S I grew up in the Anglican Church,
P.S I grew up in the Anglican Church,
G
GKC
Guest
As I said once before:
The XXIX Articles are religion as statecraft, limited in scope, tailored in application; how Elizabeth choose to govern her fractious and explosive Church, in the historical context of the late 1500s. They reflect the mind of the CoE on the pressing and disruptive issues of the Reformation, and are written broadly, with a balanced appeal to both the older doctrines of the Church, and the more reformed ones. They are, indeed, the visible face of the Via Media, the Elizabethan Compromise. Their relevance to Anglicans today depends on the attitude of the Anglicans in question. Generally, one may affirm, deny, or partially do either, depending on personal interpretation, or possibly on the strictures of whatever parish/province one belongs to, if any exist. In fact, since many of them are “mere Christianity”, almost any Trinitarian Christian will find many things to agree with, without indulging in Tract 90 forms of exegesis. But, except as noted (Article of Subscription, and that is a technical point; CoE clergy are required not so much to affirm the Articles as not “dis-affirm” them), as an item, the Articles cannot be said to have any general application, to Anglicans generally, without reference to some governing authority.
And the only governing authority is (for the CoE) is the Parliamentary Subscription Act of 1571. Which functions as a sort of job description for the Erastian CoE.
George Bull, Bishop of St. David’s/1705.
“The Church of England professeth not to deliver all her Articles as essentials of faith, without the belief whereof no man can be saved; but only propounds them as a body of safe and pious principles, for the preservation of peace to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted by her sons. And, therefore, she requires subscription to them only from the clergy, and not from the laity.”
John Bramhall, Archbishop of Armagh/1661:
“We do not hold our Thirty-nine Articles to be such necessary truths, ‘without which there is no salvation;’ nor enjoin ecclesiastical persons to swear unto them, but only to subscribe them, as theological truths, for the preservation of unity among us. Some of them are the very same as contained in the Creed; some others of them are practical truths, which come not within proper lists of points or articles to be believed; lastly, some of them are pious opinions or inferior truths which are proposed by the Church of England as not to be opposed; not as essentials of Faith necessary to be believed.”
Lambeth 1968: The Ministry - The Thirty-Nine Articles
“The Conference accepts the main conclusion of the Report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Christian Doctrine entitled ‘Subscription and Assent to the Thirty-nine Articles’ (1968) and in furtherance of its recommendation:
(a) suggests that each Church of our Communion consider whether the Articles need be bound up with its Prayer Book;
(b) suggests to the Churches of the Anglican Communion that assent to the Thirty-nine Articles be no longer required of ordinands;
(c) suggests that, when subscription is required to the Articles or other elements in the Anglican tradition, it should be required, and given, only in the context of a statement which gives the full range of our inheritance of faith and sets the Articles in their historical context.”
And hence the Episcopal 1979 Prayer Book placed them in a section for historical documents.Which they are.
What that recognizes is that there is not a single attitude toward the Articles throughout the Communion, but variable ones. And that should be reflected in how the Articles might be viewed. IOW, Anglicans are a motley crew. And to find out what attitude any take toward them, one needs to inquire of the particular Anglican entity. Anglicans, generally (meaning, without further explication) may interpret, affirm, deny, or partially affirm or deny, the Articles. Or cut them from the Prayer Book and use them to kindle the new fire at Easter. You need to ask.
The fact that Anglicans can and do have a wide variety of opinion on the Articles, any or all of them, may certainly disturb you and some of those Anglicans. But so it is. And neither you nor I nor any other overarching authority in Anglicanism can do a thing about it. Accordingly, to ascertain what an Anglican might think, collectively or individually, on the Articles, it is best to inquire.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
There are Anglicans who reject, in toto, the concept of transubstantiation, or of any concept of the Eucharist as other than memorial or symbolic. There are Anglicans who do not reject the Real Presence, but do not affirm transubstantiation, as an explanation. There are others who affirm the Real Presence and accept transubstantiation as a reasonable explication of the RP. But of those who affirm, in any sense, transubstantiation, very few would feel that the cogency of the explanation is so compelling as to make that interpretation de fide.
Motley.
GKC
A
Ad_Orientem
Guest
In addition to propitiating God and making satisfaction for sin, we also believe that the Sacrifice renders him due adoration and thanksgiving, and obtains his aid and grace for various persons and circumstances of life. The adoration and thanksgiving it renders are infinite, because Christ’s sacrifice is infinite in value, and because God can receive infinite worship. The expiation and supplication, however, are limited, because they are applied to men, who are finite.
C
Contarini
Guest
This makes no sense. What makes you think that Anglicanism has a “pure form”?
How is your version the only “historically defensible” one? What does it mean to be historically defensible?
Why are Anglicans bound to the dominant paradigm of a particular moment in Anglican history? Why is the sixteenth century any more binding on Anglicans than the fifteenth or the seventeenth or the ninth or the nineteenth?
Edwin
F
f_william
Guest
When you have a cake that looks like a hamburger it may look like a hamburger but it tastes like a cake. In the eucharist you see bread and wine and you tastes bread and wine. It has to be faith in what Christ told us that it is His body and bloo The bread .and wine are given to us from God in a way that we may recieve the body and blood. So what we see and ta
Stes is bread and wine butbwhat we recieve is His body and blood soul and divinty
Stes is bread and wine butbwhat we recieve is His body and blood soul and divinty
F
f_william
Guest
When you have a cake that looks like a hamburger it may look like a hamburger but it tastes like a cake. In the eucharist you see bread and wine and you tastes bread and wine. It has to be faith in what Christ told us that it is His body and bloo The bread .and wine are given to us from God in a way that we may recieve the body and blood. So what we see and ta
Stes is bread and wine butbwhat we recieve is His body and blood soul and divinty
Stes is bread and wine butbwhat we recieve is His body and blood soul and divinty
I
Indifferently
Guest
For a doctrinal statement on the presence of Christ, see the relevant Articles as well as the Black Rubric, which clearly states that Christ’s presence in the sacrament is “spiritual” (that is, he is present by the Holy Spirit) and not “corporeal” (that is, physical). Thus, it is, according to Anglicanism, idolatry to render worship (adoration) to the consecrated communion elements.
Nevertheless, Christ is truly received in the sacrament, after an heavenly and spiritual manner - as we receive bread and wine to our physical nourishment, we receive by our mouth of faith the body and blood of Christ to the preservation of our body and soul unto everlasting life.
See also the Book of Homilies.
(Alternatively of course you could just ignore all that historical background and believe the teaching of the Council of Trent whilst still calling yourself “Anglican”.)
(I’m sure I’ll get a tortured Anglo-Catholic response to this.)
Nevertheless, Christ is truly received in the sacrament, after an heavenly and spiritual manner - as we receive bread and wine to our physical nourishment, we receive by our mouth of faith the body and blood of Christ to the preservation of our body and soul unto everlasting life.
See also the Book of Homilies.
(Alternatively of course you could just ignore all that historical background and believe the teaching of the Council of Trent whilst still calling yourself “Anglican”.)
(I’m sure I’ll get a tortured Anglo-Catholic response to this.)
I
Indifferently
Guest
As for the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Roman Church teaches that the offering of the Mass can propitiate God’s wrath against the quick and the dead for their sins. This is in keeping with the whole Roman Catholic soteric system, where “justification” is a process of renewal of the sinner into the image of Christ, which may not be completed in this life and may require temporal punishments in purgatory to settle the account and finish the subjective process.
Anglicanism teaches (XXIX Articles, Book of Common Prayer, Homily on the Salvation of Mankind) the Reformed doctrine of salvation, which is that God’s juridical wrath against sin was settled once for all at the cross of Calvary (“It is finished”). Justification is a one-time event in the life of a person, and comes about by faith alone (sola fide) preceded by the sovereign work of the Holy Ghost (regeneration). The sacrifice in the Eucharist is the offering of praise that the regenerate, justified man can offer to God, and the process by which he is renewed following justification (sanctification) is only possible for those who have already received the once-for-all divine pardon.
Anglicanism teaches (XXIX Articles, Book of Common Prayer, Homily on the Salvation of Mankind) the Reformed doctrine of salvation, which is that God’s juridical wrath against sin was settled once for all at the cross of Calvary (“It is finished”). Justification is a one-time event in the life of a person, and comes about by faith alone (sola fide) preceded by the sovereign work of the Holy Ghost (regeneration). The sacrifice in the Eucharist is the offering of praise that the regenerate, justified man can offer to God, and the process by which he is renewed following justification (sanctification) is only possible for those who have already received the once-for-all divine pardon.
G
GKC
Guest
I doubt it. However edifying (or otherwise) such intra-familial interchanges might be, what it shows is that Anglicans are motley. And we have already established that.
GKC
Copy that. One could argue that in fact, Anglicanism’s “pure” form is the original one: the one under Henry VIII and the Six Articles, not the Thirty-Nine.
G
GKC
Guest
A reasonable assertion, in this line of argument. The whip with the six bloody thongs, indeed.
GKC
I
Indifferently
Guest
The term “Anglican” as we understand it now is a very recent coinage. The religion of Henry VIII was essentially a version of Roman Catholicism, with the power of the pope instead vested in the secular ruler, King Henry VIII. It’s clear the Reformation was still underway in the church of England, and had not reached stability until the Elizabethan settlement. Remarkably, the 1662 revision was more or less a word-for-word restatement of Elizabeth, over-against different levels of innovation.
D
Della
Guest
This may be your interpretation of Catholic teaching (or whatever reformer you happen to agree with), but it’s not the teaching of the Church. Please consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the matter if you want Catholic teaching from a Catholic source.
Purgatory is not where we “settle accounts” for our sins. Nor is it a subjective process. You need to get your facts straight before telling others what a Church you do not belong to teaches.
I
Indifferently
Guest
Would you care to correct me then?This may be your interpretation of Catholic teaching (or whatever reformer you happen to agree with), but it’s not the teaching of the Church. Please consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the matter if you want Catholic teaching from a Catholic source.
Purgatory is not where we “settle accounts” for our sins. Nor is it a subjective process. You need to get your facts straight before telling others what a Church you do not belong to teaches.
You say ‘Purgatory is not where we “settle accounts” for our sins.’
The Catholic encyclopedia (Article: Purgatory) states:
God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.
The word “satisfaction” carries with it precisely the meaning of the settling of an account - the view that our debt due to God for our sins requires that we be sufficiently punished to “satisfy” God’s justice.
You also say that purgatory is “not a subjective process”.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
The place where this purification happens is purgatory. Since each sinner requires a different level of purgation, it is obviously subjective (i.e. on a case-by-case basis).
No mention in the CCC of purgatory involving “temporal punishment” interestingly, but that is still official Roman Catholic dogma (per the Council of Trent) and thus must be dogmatically held by all the (RC) faithful.
G
GKC
Guest
And its stability was the Elizabethan Settlement, of which the compromises of the Articles (the Articles of Peace), and the limits on their application, are the most visible face. And the 1662 Book was produced at another such an occasion, of the need for stability, at the Restoration. If unfettered, national authority can find any religious extreme to be a nuisance, in governance. Hence a via media. And a motley Church.
GKC
I
Indifferently
Guest
They are Articles of Religion. They were to the bishops of the time treated very much as a Confession of Faith. Their preface treats them as such. They were approved by convocation. They were not binding on the faithful, but since subscription was required of the clergy, and the clergy were the only ministers who were vested with teaching authority in the Church of England, they can be fairly said to summarize the doctrine of the Church of England and the Church of England’s definitive position on various Reformation controversies.
There was a C of E between 1530 and 1830, as some like to forget.
- Status